Geordi and Riker Talk to the Pakeds, or Bill Nye Talks to Folks in Kentucky

Someday I can just bring in a real guitar and make it look like I'm actually doing this. Because I used to play guitar many, many, many, many years ago, but I had to give it up. But I know that I've had dinner with the guy who's doing that.

That's the cool part. Welcome to The Dividing Line. There's Gray Level with our opening theme, and here we are. A couple of quick things. I blogged this morning about our new ministry resource list. If you didn't see that, take a look at the blog.

I think it's a pretty neat way of doing it. It keeps three-lettered governmental agencies happy, and if you want to keep all three-lettered the four-lettered governmental agencies, definitely worry about that.

But the three-lettered ones, like NSAIRSFBI, those are the ones you've got to be careful of. Have you noticed that? It's the three-lettered ones that are scary. Got to be careful about those guys. But anyways, a number of you are already there helping me to pick up stuff.

Some possible new opportunities have kicked up real close. In other words, while I'm in London, we may do another unbelievable program, and if we do, I'm going to have to spend the next few days I've got before I leave really, really busy riding many, many miles, really basically, is the only way I can get through all this stuff.

And so we put some stuff up there, and there's even some more stuff there. I explain on the blog, I've run into this really weird the book that I'm writing right now, you have to have a certain number of you can't go above a certain number of words in each chapter, because it's a two-person book, and it's sort of like back when I wrote with Dave Hunt, we had a certain word limit.

Problem is, I use a word processor called Millel, which is an Israeli word processor, actually, and it's really good with biblical languages and stuff like that. It says my current chapter is 3 ,990 words, 4 ,000 limit, pretty good.

Put it in Word, 3803. Put in Pages, 3864. Unfortunately, Word is going to be the one that judges all this, and my Word copy is very, very old and likes to crash. Crashed 45 times while editing the Quran book.

It's just so much fun. It's just these screams of pain from my office every once in a while. So we threw a new edition of Word up there to keep track of these things. But anyways, that's the mystery story list.

Take a look at it and help us out if you can. Really appreciate the people who do that. Secondly, do pray for the upcoming trip. I'm going to be gone the last half of this month, basically. I get home the last day of February, Lord willing.

That's assuming all the flights go well and everything else. Some wonderful opportunities. Looking forward to meeting all you folks down in Fredericksburg. I would like it'd be really nice if Fredericksburg wasn't completely snowed in or something.

I am a little concerned about flying through those airports this time of year. 3 ,000 flights canceled yesterday. That kind of stuff is going to really throw a crimp in the style, shall we say. And then I see a tweet a little while ago from NBC that flying into Russia, you can't take anything on the plane anymore, basically.

No gels, no nothing. No zip zero nada. No liquids, no gels, nothing. And I'm like, I know. That's what I'm hoping, is that it's Russia, not Ukraine. And it's from the U .S., and I'm not going to be flying there from the U .S.

So who knows? I don't know. All I know is it looks like it's going to be a pain. But I'm really looking forward to getting to Ukraine and the teaching that we're going to be doing there, and then coming back, stopping in London, getting together with Justin Brierley and that kind of stuff.

And we appreciate those who have helped us to pay for that element of things, that little extra part of the leg where we go to London. So that's very important. So thank you very much for helping along those lines.

Bill Nye, Ken Ham, and the Debate Over Origins

Obviously, the big news yesterday was the result of the aftermath of the Bill Nye-Kenham debate. Now, I have addressed in the past elements of this particular controversy. It is not something that we are specifically known for.

I've addressed it because I do have at least a basic science background. I've said many times one of the mistakes I made as a young person was one day the phone rang. It was the registrar at Grand Canyon College at the time saying, you're about to graduate.

Do you want your B .A. in Bible, your B .S. in biology? And I wasn't given any time. I was going to seminary, so I figured, well, I guess a B .A. in Bible would be best. Going to seminary, that was wrong, by the way, would not have mattered the seminary whatsoever.

It would have been much better to have taken the B .S. in biology. I finished all the work for it. I was department fellow in anatomy and physiology. I passed all my senior boards. All the rest of that kind of fun stuff.

And I've mentioned many times, I raised 25 ,000 -35 ,000 Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies my last semester at Grand Canyon studying the white gene in the chromosomes of the genetic makeup of the Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly.

I can still smell fly nap, for those of you who have ever done that kind of thing. And I found out, of course, after I graduated years later that fly nap was carcinogenic. But anyway, hopefully been protected from all that.

But I do have a bit of science background. And I've told the story before that after I graduated from Grand Canyon, and by the way, I was the only creationist in the biology department at Grand Canyon, even though it was a Christian college.

Everyone else were theistic evolutionists or just plain old evolutionists, I guess. And I had fought this battle in public high school many, many, many years ago. So I wasn't familiar with the issues and obviously dialogued with many of my professors on the relevant issues.

And shortly after I graduated, I picked up and purchased and read very carefully Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker. I wanted to read the best the other side had to say, and I think that probably still is, the best presentation of neo-Darwinian micromutational evolutionary theory.

There are all sorts of evolutionary theories and various permutations there too. And so I read the book, and I did not do so in the company of other people, other Christians. It wasn't like we were getting grouped together.

It was just me, recent graduate from college, recent department fellow in anatomy and physiology, etc., etc., with a good GPA, by the way. And as I read the book, I came to the conclusion that the key problem with the entire theory was its single-step mode, and that it could not explain systems where you would have to have multiple components before any type of advantage to the offspring of a particular organism would be granted.

In other words, it would be a negative effect to have to build these structures that would come from alleged micromutations. You'd have to have a number of structures to work together before any positive benefit would accrue to the organism, which goes against the micromutational natural selection concept.

And so I came to that conclusion on my own. I didn't read any quote-unquote creationist books or stuff like that that dealt with any of that stuff. I came to that conclusion on my own. I don't know how many years later it was.

I happened to be speaking at a church, I believe, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and at lunch at a nice Mexican place—they have lots of those in New Mexico—I was talking about this with the brethren there, and I mentioned the conclusions I had come to, and they said, oh, you're talking about intelligent design, and you're talking about irreducible complexity.

And I'm going, huh? What? And since I graduated, these books started coming out, like Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and stuff like that, that had coined this type of phraseology that I was not familiar with, but had come to the same conclusion on my own.

And so I picked up those books and read those books of, ah, there's somebody else thought the exact same thing that I did, and much more than I did, obviously. And so I've always had an interest in the area, would at least have the background to do more in the area, at least as far as a knowledge of the vocabulary and scientific methodology and things like that.

And certainly, from a presuppositional perspective, what did I say on Tuesday? I said, I hope that in the debate on Tuesday night, that the presuppositional character of the examination of the data would come out.

And in some ways, it did. My biggest concern was just along those lines, that that was not the main focus. Ken Ham did bring it up a number of times. But as far as I could tell, Bill Nye, as so many in his position, very intelligent men.

But the problem we have today is, there's so much specialization in education, that the vast majority of people that I encounter, especially in the scientific community, are woefully ignorant of other areas of human knowledge, and seem to think that as long as you know something about science, that that makes you an expert in everything.

And the greatest example of that is one of the most arrogant men on the face of the planet. And that, of course, Richard Dawkins, whose knowledge of philosophy, epistemology, and other things is abjectly bad.

But he's really not overly concerned about that particular issue. Anyways, so the presuppositional nature of that whole subject of origins and all that type of stuff certainly would be attractive to me.

But look, there are plenty of good people working in that area already, and that's one of the reasons that I only make comments on it as they're relevant as we're in passing. I did not watch the debate.

I mentioned to somebody on Twitter yesterday, in one of those really long twee-short things that I've been doing recently, almost articles, those show up someplace on the website? Yeah, on the blog or something like that?

I thought most recent tweets did. Okay. All right. They do, because I've been writing some, actually, they're almost blog articles, I've just been writing them on Twitter. I mentioned to someone briefly that one of the things that concerned me, obviously, was the—well, let me just back up here.

I mentioned to somebody on there that I did not watch it, and it's really interesting. Y 'all know the Nixon-Kennedy effect? You know what I'm talking about there? I've experienced this numerous times now.

Numerous times. What was the last one? I had a real recent example where I had listened to a debate, and then I talked to somebody who had watched the debate, and they had almost the exact opposite conclusions I had.

I would like to suggest that if you want to analyze the arguments of two sides, listen to it, don't watch it. Because the watching of it, the visual, you become distracted by dress, by facial expressions, rather than actually analyzing the words and the content of the words.

And so I did not watch the debate Tuesday night. It was interesting to watch Twitter. And I did, I guess, have some expectations as I began listening yesterday around, oh, I don't know, around 10 o 'clock, 10 .30, to the debate while I was doing a ride in South Mountain Park, which is interesting.

I don't know why South Mountain seems to be where I listen to a lot of debates, but I remember listening to the Maury-Ali debate there and all sorts of stuff like that. But anyhow, so I started listening to this, and I did listen to it a little at high speed.

That's how I listen to everything. I suppose that might have some impact upon things. I really don't know. It would be interesting to do a study sometime on how you subjectively feel about something, whether you listen to it at high speed or what.

I've just, I've always thought that the faster someone's talking, the smarter they sound. So it just makes everybody sound all that much smarter, and that they can think on their feet really fast and everything else.

The Debate Format Was Broken

The format, and I'm giving you my honest analysis here. People say you can't be honest because you're a Christian and you're a creationist, but you've got to create the world, you can't be honest. I'm going to try to give my honest.

The format of the debate, no one asked me. I wish someone had. I do have a little experience in this area. The format stunk. Now, not that I have anything against a 30-minute opening statement. I mean, Yusuf Ismail likes 30-minute opening statements.

I like having a half an hour, I suppose. But the problem with a 30-minute opening statement is that almost automatically there's going to be very little, much less interaction you would have otherwise.

There was no cross-examination in this debate. There is no debate without cross-examination. The audience questions were sort of like a rapid fire type thing, but you have a 30-minute opening statement, then two five-minute rebuttals.

You guys say, well, it's like having a 10-minute rebuttal. No, it's not. Because when you break it into two five minutes, you're going to be responding to what the guy said in his last five-minute rebuttal.

That means you only had literally five minutes of response to the 30 minutes of presentation. That means there's really no meaningful interaction going on at that point at all. Then the audience questions come in and they weren't bad, but it's still not cross-examination and there really wasn't any meaningful closing statement either.

So the format was horrific. Secondly, it was designed to fail from the beginning for Ken Ham. Now, why do I say that? As I said in the tweet that I typed, this debate ended up, Bill Nye was very good at making this, he isolated Ken Ham and evidently isolated the entirety of the state of Kentucky.

Clearly, and I'm going to play, I've got clips skewed up, clearly believed, he clearly believes that he was basically doing foreign missions work here. I mean, Bill Nye, obviously, many times he talked about those of us on the outside.

I mean, you could not help but get the idea that he was thinking that basically he's going into a third world country here where most people don't have a full complement of teeth and the collective IQ of the entire state of Kentucky will be on average below 75.

There was really a sense of arrogance there. I mean, he's a nice guy and all, he's obviously good at talking to audiences, but over and over again, the idea was expressed that, well, those of us on the outside, you in here, and what he succeeded in doing was isolating Ken Ham and his specific narrow view of creationism and specifically his young earth creationism and one version of young earth creationism, and hence the entire area that, in my opinion, is the most fruitful in this area, and that is intelligent design, the evidence of intelligent design, the numerous fingerprints of God that are all over creation that the evolutionist has no meaningful answer for almost never came up.

The most important stuff almost never came up. Sure, Ken Ham brought up presuppositions and he brought up a lot of important stuff, but because Nye was successful at framing it in the way that he did and because there's no follow-up debate.

You see, if they had had this debate first and then next month they're going to do the follow-up debate at an evolution museum someplace where it's Nye's particular theory, because he's got his theory, he has one particular theory, and you can demonstrate that you'd be able to quote evolutionists who say his theory is all wrong and you can point out all the different viewpoints within the evolutionary camp and stuff like that that contradict each other and how they fight with each other and you could just, with no analysis whatsoever of Ham's position, then at least it would be even and you'd put the two together.

But that's not what's going to happen. So you only had one side being examined, not the other side being examined, and the most compelling, powerful information just wasn't there, just wasn't presented.

Ken Ham did a great job for what he was doing, but it was just the way it was set up. I'm just like, who thought of this? Again, it would have been nice if somebody had maybe asked. I would have said, no, this is really not, no, you're not going to, this is what's going to happen.

You could see that coming from a long way down the road. Now, it's interesting that when I posted that, all of a sudden I once again am reminded that amongst non-evolutionists, at least non-Darwinian, amongst Christians who have not simply capitulated to the Darwinian theory, um, there are some, some, we ain't all on the same page, obviously.

And I've, I've, I will, I will admit, I don't know all the politics of the Ken Ham group or this group or that group. And immediately I started seeing on Twitter, oh, this group has said this against Ken Ham and this group has said this.

And, and I'm like, okay, well, what? Um, but very clearly there's a bunch of politics that yours truly doesn't know anything about. I don't, I'm not a part of that, that element of it. And then I, and I'll admit, I don't understand this.

There are people on Twitter going, I just, I just don't buy that intelligent design stuff. I'm like, what? I just go with the Bible. I'm like, um, I don't get that part. I've never understood the people who go, I don't think it comes from the Bible.

Oh, well, what do you mean? It is the predictive element of divine creation that the very essence of life will give evidence of a designer. It is, it, it would have been the killer argument from Ken Ham to demonstrate.

You want prediction, buddy? Let me show you where you as an evolutionist have been faced with the evidence of God's existence over and over again. All of your textbooks talk about design and express amazement at the complexity of the, of the, of cellular respiration and mitochondria and all the rest of this amazing stuff that you cannot account for the rise of these things on a basis, on the basis of, of Darwinian micromutational evolutionary theory.

And it's all predicted on the basis of the creation theory. It never came up. And then you got other people going, well, I don't use that because that's, that's not from the Bible. And I'm like, what?

I lost at that point, completely, completely lost. So, um, it was, you know, on, on the simple level of, um, consistently trying to drive his point home. I think Ken Ham did a great job and he did raise the presuppositional issues and Bill Nye clearly, um, is non-reflective when it comes to epistemology and worldview issues.

Just, hey, we've got it. We, you know, just trust us. He can, he doesn't like that in Ken Ham. He just realized he's doing the same thing. No question about it. But on debate style, as far as ability to throw out the points, uh, Bill Nye won on that level really easily because of the way that the, the debate was set up.

And so on the whole, I'd have to give it to Nye, uh, because of presuppositional problems with the mechanism of the debate itself. If there was a second debate that would allow for the balance to take place where now Ken Ham can go after him without having to be constantly in the defensive mode.

Great. But if that's happening, no one's told me about it. So if you just take one debate and just like, look at it from that perspective, um, that was the problem. That was the problem with the, with the whole thing.

Let's listen. Uh, I almost still had this at 2 .4 because that's how I was trying to get out. Um, uh, somebody, somebody on, on, on Twitter, um, did you check out William and Craig's podcast, which refused to debate Christians?

Uh, yeah, that was last week. That was, that was Tuesday. I played that on the program on Tuesday. Um, Mutato in channel just said, Bill Nye is non reflective, unlike my head. Uh, it's, it's very helpful, uh, to have that kind of, of commentary in, in channel while, while, uh, my head is very reflective too.

Uh, that's just the way, the way it is. All right. Uh, what was I gonna say? I'm gonna play some clips here real quick. And, um, but I'm not gonna play them at high speed. I will play them at 1 .2. How's that?

At least 1 .2. You want to hear what I was listening to? Let's listen to what I was listening to at 2 .4. Uh, here's Bill Nye at high, high speed. And here's my concern.

What keeps the United States ahead? What makes the United States a world leader is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process and try to divide science into observational science and historic science.

Thank you very much, uh, Bill.

Uh, like I said, I understand that fine. That, that works for me just fine. But I, this was his constant repetitive theme. And I, I, it was at the beginning. This is an opening statement and it's at the end.

And I was just left sitting there going, wow, if that's, if that's your transcendent motivation for life, well, that's really, that's, that's really pathetic. It really.

Is here, here, here we go. And here's my concern. What keeps the United States ahead? What makes the United States a world leader is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process and try to divide science into observational science and historic science, we are not going to move forward.

We will not embrace natural laws. We will not make discoveries. We will not, uh, invent and innovate and stay ahead. So if you ask me if Ken Ham's creation model is viable, I say, no, it is absolutely not viable.

So stay with us over the next period and you can compare my evidence to his. Thank you all very much.

Now, there was a couple of times when Ken Ham tried to challenge this, but I would have, given the repetitive nature of it, I really would have tried to put it to bed more strictly than Ken Ham did. He never bothered to substantiate what he's saying here.

Um, we are, we are not rejecting natural law. We are saying, as Ken Ham did say, he can't even tell us where natural law comes from or whether it's going to be the same tomorrow as it is today. I mean, he has an epistemological problem.

He just assumes these things. He is stealing from the Christian worldview. Ken Ham said all of that. That's exactly right. But what you need to emphasize is, Bill, why are you saying that we cannot do predictive science?

Why are you saying that we, we've, I've shown you, he did show examples, but showing examples and showing the consistency of those examples, two different things. Um, but the point is, and let me, let me zoom down to the bottom here.

Here's Nye's closing statement. Um, again, here's, here's the big, this is why I do things. He talks about joy and everything else, but does he explain why given his worldview, he, this soon to be defunct piece of dust, whose memories will disappear and who will be forgotten why he has joy in this.

Where does this sense of joy come from? Where is the transcendent meaning,.

Et cetera, et cetera. It sort of got lost. As my old professor, Carl Sagan said so often, when you're in love, you want to tell the world. And I base my beliefs on the information and the process that we call science.

It fills me with joy to make discoveries every day of things I had never seen before. It fills me to joy to know that we can pursue these answers. It is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me that we are, you and I are somehow at least one of the ways that the universe knows itself.

You and I are a product of the universe. It's astonishing. I admit, I see your faces that we have come to be because of the universe's existence. And we are driven to pursue that, to find out where we came from.

And the second question we all want to know, are we alone? Are we alone in the universe? And these questions are deep within us and they drive us. So the process of science, the way we know nature is the most compelling thing to me.

Did you catch the religious nature of that? The universe became personified there in case you missed that. I mean, this is a religious presupposition that he thinks is purely natural.

And doesn't even realize it. I just want to close by reminding everybody what's at stake here. If we abandon all that we've learned, our ancestors, what they've learned about nature and our place in it, if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we eschew, if we let go of everything that people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward, stop looking for the answer to the next question, we in the United States will be out-competed by other countries, other economies.

Now that would be okay, I guess, but I was born here, I'm a patriot. And so we have to embrace science education. To the voters and taxpayers that are watching, please keep that in mind. We have to keep science education in science, in science classes.

There you go. Somehow we're against science and we've got to keep science education and we're going to fall behind other people if this guy is right. And of course, he had pointed out that the MRI was invented by someone who believes like he believes and stuff like that.

So he never provided a foundation for why he has this joy or why he has this drive. He was just describing things. He can't give reasons for things. That's one of the problems with people who are scientists who are narrowly trained that don't get the idea that there's other stuff you've got to explain out there.

That's not giving a reason. That's not giving a reason. That was an amazing element of his repeated assertions, which I found to be very, very odd. There's somebody on Twitter here, and I don't get it.

ChrisJSimones2 says, in other words, Nye was being condescending, but faked politeness. Come on, be honest, Jim. Being dishonest? I don't get that one. I don't know. Anyways, and then my daughter is eating Brussels sprouts and watching the dividing line during dinner.

It's almost like I'm joining in with the family. It's not quite the same because we really can't have much of a back and forth. But hi, guys. Brussels sprouts. I didn't raise you to eat. Anyways, I'm sorry.

Okay, we continue on. I just want to review.

Why Bill Nye's Worldview Borrows from the Christian Worldview

Briefly with everybody why we accept in the outside world, why we accept the Big Bang.

Now, I got really tired. It became repetitive, insulting, and condescending. We in the outside world, those of us who are here to help you, we know that you have problems. In fact, I'm going to use a Star Trek analogy here.

Is Sean watching? Is Sean in channel? Because at least there will be one person in channel who will understand this, and I think there might be some others. Yep, Sean's there. Okay, Sean Cornell's going to hear this.

The idea that crossed my mind was Bill Nye was Geordi, who beamed onto the Pakled ship. Yep, there you go. We make things go. So Geordi's there, and he's trying to help them, but they're pretty simple, because they're in Kentucky.

So evidently, from the Star Trek universe, Bill Nye thinks he's from the Federation, and the folks at the Creation Museum in Kentucky are Pakleds. Oh my, is that not the attitude? We on the big ship. Can we show you how we do?

Oh, just after a while, it was like, really? Seriously? And then we have Mutato, also known as the brain behind Milo Hotzenbuehler, who says evolutionists are like tribbles. They multiply for no good reason.

Oh, that was good. And someone quoted, there it is, good old David Silverman. Remember David Silverman? David Silverman's now the president of American Atheists. And I embarrassed David Silverman rather badly when I debated him in New York.

Good, we need to. But during the debate, he tweeted, I want to punch Ken Ham. I won't, I promise, but I want to. So there's the president of the American Atheists demonstrating why the American Atheists are the American Atheists.

Anyway, we press on with the further comments here.

Now, my Kentucky friends, I want you to consider this.

My Pakled friends. Just translate it in your mind. My Pakled friends.

Right now, there is no place in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to get a degree in this kind of.

Nuclear medicine, this kind of drugs associated with that. So that clearly proves that California is better than Kentucky because there are more smart people. So leave the Pakleds and come to the Federation.

We will train you. We will teach you. Now, one last thing. You may not know that.

In the U .S. Constitution, from the Founding Fathers, is the sentence to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Kentucky voters, voters who might be watching online in places like Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma.

You don't want to raise a generation of science students who don't understand how we know our place in the cosmos, our place in space, who don't understand.

Natural law. Now, did you catch that? Natural law is how you know your place in the cosmos. This man is as religious and presuppositional as Ken Ham is. He just doesn't know it. He just doesn't know it.

He won't face it. That's amazing, amazing. And when you think you're talking to Pakleds, it's understandable why you won't listen to them telling you that.

I'm sorry, I can't help it. I'm hearing that going. You know, Kentucky voters, we don't want to raise a generation of scientists without all their teeth in their mouth.

That's exactly what he's saying. It's absolutely amazing. Now, I could not find it, and I am very, very angry with myself about this. I listened, I heard it, and I could not find it. Maybe I, I don't know what I did to it, but I could not find where Bill Nye talked about the rational man.

I mean, he called himself the rational man a couple times, but there was one point where he talked about the rational man. And Al Mohler, in his review yesterday morning of the debate, because I guess he was sitting in the very front row, likewise zeroed in on this, his discussion of the rational man, the autonomous man, the human without need of reference to God.

This came up a lot, and clearly this is, I mean, if you want to see a picture of the non-reflective secular mind, this is what you got. Brilliant man, in certain areas. The problem is, they think their brilliance in those areas means they're brilliant in all areas, and they have some huge blind spots, but as long as they think that the rest of us are packlids, they're not going to.

Really think about what we have to say about that. That, by Mr. Ham's point of view, that the Bible is translated into American English serves as a science text, and that he and his followers will interpret that for you.

I want you to consider what that means. It means that Mr. Ham's word, or his interpretation of these other words, is somehow to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find literally in your backyard in Kentucky.

It's a troubling and unsettling point of view, and it's one I'd very much like you to address when you come back.

I'm not 100 certain what Bill Nye thinks a worldview is. Evidently you can get a PhD in science and not know anything about worldviews, not know anything about the overriding roles of presuppositions and epistemology and things like that.

You know, you just, as long as you can do chromatography right, you're on. Get that periodic table down, buddy, and you're good. What he just said there, obviously his knowledge of the Bible is pathetic.

He kept talking about a 3 ,500-year-old book translated into modern English, and he even used the telephone game analogy, which means he has no clue as to where the Bible came from, the fact that there are some of us, believe it or not, in this world that actually read the original languages.

We still teach that stuff, it's amazing. He may not think that they can teach Greek and Hebrew in Kentucky. I mean, the Paklid's pretty limited in their literary output, I would imagine. So he just may think that all he can do is read it in English, he can't read an original language, there's nobody associated with the Creation Museum who can read Hebrew or Greek or anything like that, I don't know.

And he doesn't know anything about the transmission, the use of manuscripts, all that stuff, very obviously, well beyond his education at that point. And to be honest with you, the fact of the matter is that the reason he'd bring these things up and say the things the way he did is he doesn't think that really matters anyways.

That is a level of education that's not nearly as important as his own. That comes across very clearly in what he's saying. And that can be very offensive to us, we've sort of chuckled about the Paklid thing, but look, did any of you click on the debate hashtag, the creation debate hashtag, after the debate was over?

Rich says, didn't want to. I did! Someone in channel mentioned that they did. Wow. It was, wow. This fellow on Twitter says, thanks, didn't know what a Paklid was. Are the Paklids on YouTube? I bet you there's got to be some clips from the Paklids.

We find things, we make things go. Look it up and you'll see it and you'll go, yeah, that's exactly, yeah, there you go. There you go. So anyhow, what was I saying? I don't know. I've got too many things going on here in front of me.

Let me see. I've just got a few others to get to here.

And we're, we're running through time here. There's a question that troubles us all from the time we are absolutely youngest and first able to think. And that is, where did we come from? Where did I come from?

And this question is so compelling that we've invented the science of astronomy. We've invented life science. We've invented physics. We've discovered these natural laws so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from.

Okay. You're exactly right.

We are driven to that, but your worldview doesn't explain why we are. Do you hear him? He's just observing a fact and doesn't, he's, he's attacking Ken Ham as saying, you folks are not going to ask why, but he hasn't asked why he has these desires to know these things.

He is over and over again, stealing from our worldview wholesale. And Ken Ham told him this. I'm not saying he didn't. He did. He's stealing from our worldview and doesn't even seem to realize he's doing it.